5 ms·

Is there any situation in which Alice can refuse Bob access to a tool Bob's declared a need for not capitalism? I don't care about the word 'ownership' or what

Is there any situation in which Alice can refuse Bob access to a tool Bob's declared a need for not capitalism? I don't care about the word 'ownership' or what makes it valid, I care about limiting access to limited resources, be those resources hammers or the land my ancestors are buried on.

wbsss4412 5y ago
Well, ownership is the operative term here, so it’s a big deal. Ownership is who decides access (a more appropriate term would probably be who governs utilization), not where access can or cannot be limited. So to directly answer the question, yes, within certain definitions of “socialism” bobs access can be limited.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  Can a private citizen limit access of another private citizen's access without it being capitalism?
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    I mean yes, I could literally take the hammer from you and destroy it under any system, thus “limiting your access”. The question is whether or not that is a crime, whether or not you or I have a right to the hammer or control over what’s done with it. Again, ownership is the operative idea here.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    I think you’re trying to ask if there’s such a thing as private property/ownership outside of capitalism, and the answer is yes. An obvious example would be feudalism.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Then what are people referring to when they say "Capitalism caused this"? If capitalism is private ownership of tools, and there are systems other than capitalism with private ownership of tools, what are people diagnosing when they say 'capitalism' in this context?
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        Well capitalism isn’t just private ownership of tools, it’s also division of labor, wage labor, and market exchange. Possibly some other things that are escaping me at the moment. The critique ultimately traces back to Marx, who asserted that social relations within a society are dictated by the “mode of production”. I don’t necessarily alway agree with people when they say “capitalism caused this” but this is by best attempt at relaying the reasoning. Ultimately the critique that socialists are making, to bring it back to your analogy, is that most people don’t own their own hammer, capitalists do, they just do all the work with it to build houses while the capitalists take the lions share of the profits.

wbsss4412 5y ago

Well, ownership is the operative term here, so it’s a big deal. Ownership is who decides access (a more appropriate term would probably be who governs utilization), not where access can or cannot be limited. So to directly answer the question, yes, within certain definitions of “socialism” bobs access can be limited.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
Can a private citizen limit access of another private citizen's access without it being capitalism?
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  I mean yes, I could literally take the hammer from you and destroy it under any system, thus “limiting your access”. The question is whether or not that is a crime, whether or not you or I have a right to the hammer or control over what’s done with it. Again, ownership is the operative idea here.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  I think you’re trying to ask if there’s such a thing as private property/ownership outside of capitalism, and the answer is yes. An obvious example would be feudalism.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Then what are people referring to when they say "Capitalism caused this"? If capitalism is private ownership of tools, and there are systems other than capitalism with private ownership of tools, what are people diagnosing when they say 'capitalism' in this context?
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      Well capitalism isn’t just private ownership of tools, it’s also division of labor, wage labor, and market exchange. Possibly some other things that are escaping me at the moment. The critique ultimately traces back to Marx, who asserted that social relations within a society are dictated by the “mode of production”. I don’t necessarily alway agree with people when they say “capitalism caused this” but this is by best attempt at relaying the reasoning. Ultimately the critique that socialists are making, to bring it back to your analogy, is that most people don’t own their own hammer, capitalists do, they just do all the work with it to build houses while the capitalists take the lions share of the profits.